Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of secondary fibromyalgia (FM) has garnered increasing interest over the last decade. This has resulted from the realization that many common rheumatic disorders have an FM comorbidity that influences, or should influence, optimal management1,2. In this edition of The Journal , Wolfe and colleagues reconsider the issue of primary and secondary FM, asking whether they are equivalent3. Currently, there is no universally agreed-upon definition. Dr. Kahler Hench, the originator of the term fibromyalgia , provided this definition: “Fibrositis is considered primary when there is no associated underlying disorder and secondary when it occurs in patients with underlying rheumatic or other organic disease”4. The 1990 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria paper noted: “To avoid argument over the existence or nonexistence of ‘secondary fibromyalgia,’ which is believed by some investigators to be fibromyalgia caused [author’s italics] by another condition, we adopted the term secondary-concomitant fibromyalgia [original italics] to indicate fibromyalgia occurring in the presence of another significant rheumatic disorder which may have been caused by or was merely associated with the patient’s fibromyalgia”5. In the current paper by Wolfe, et al , the following definition is given: Secondary FM is FM occurring in the presence of another clinically important and dominant medical disorder3. We agree with this simplified definition and note that there is an ever-increasing list of disorders that have been associated with FM [Table 1; plus the same table with references (Supplementary Table 1, available with the online version of this article)]; whether a patient is designated as having primary FM becomes dependent upon a diligent search for all such associated comorbidities. View this table: Table 1. Fibromyalgia comorbidities. … Address correspondence to Dr. R.M. Bennett, 6119 SW California St., Portland, Oregon 97219, USA. E-mail: bennetrob1{at}comcast.net
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".